(Corrects first name of senator in sixth paragraph of
story published July 31.)

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- A bipartisan measure on federal
toxic chemical standards would undercut state efforts, the head
of a Senate committee said in comments that may imperil a
compromise to overhaul U.S. consumer-safety regulations.

Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, said legislation worked out by
Republican David Vitter of Louisiana and Frank Lautenberg, a New
Jersey Democrat who has since died, has flaws “endemic”
throughout and needs far-reaching revisions.

“If we don’t fix these problems, we’re not going to have a
bill, because too many states are objecting to this,” Boxer
said today at a hearing on toxic-chemical oversight. “States
are the laboratory of democracy, and federal standards should
set a floor, not a ceiling.”

The compromise measure unveiled in May after years of
disagreements would require safety testing of new chemicals, and
give the Environmental Protection Agency authority to ban
chemicals, such as those used in detergents, flame retardants or
building materials. It would be the first major environmental
protection measure since the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990,
and revamp the Toxic Substances Control Act deemed broken by
most experts.

“Let’s not seize defeat from the jaws of victory,”
Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who said he backs
the measure, said today in response to Boxer’s criticism.

Vitter and Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, said
they would propose clarifying language for the compromise
measure to make sure it wouldn’t unnecessarily preempt state
protections.

Chemical Industry

The measure is backed by the American Chemistry Council,
which represents companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and 3M Co.,
and has qualified support from environmental groups such as the
League of Conservation Voters, which is pushing for stronger
oversight of the industry. Other health and safety groups oppose
the bill, in large part because they say it lacks compliance
deadlines, would tie EPA in knots setting up new frameworks and
limit lawsuits against chemical makers.

“The committee should reject this bill or amend it in ways
that make it more protective of human beings and the environment
and less protective of the chemical industry,” Thomas McGarity,
a scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform, said in prepared
testimony.

The legislation would require that every chemical in
commercial use be analyzed and labeled as either a high or low
risk. The EPA would then conduct safety tests for materials that
pose a high risk to health. It also gives the agency the
authority to take action -- including a ban -- against chemicals
deemed unsafe, and it would require testing of new chemicals
entering the market.

The industry is backing increased regulation as it deals
with mounting consumer concerns about the safety of products.